Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies
Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> writes:
> Le jeudi 30 juin 2005 à 13:12 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva a écrit :
>> Why not simply puting the loader inside the library package? If the
>> loader should always be together with the library, then make them one
>> package and be done with it.
>> I may be missing something obvious, but I don't see the point of having
>> a -commong package in this case.
> If the library SONAME changes, the loader's filename doesn't need to
> change. However, in this case, the two versions of the library must be
> able to be installed together, so the loader has to be in a different
The loaders are plugins, right? (they get dlopened and not exec()ed)
And then you mix two SONAMEs of a library in a single program? I doubt
you get that to work reliable.